WRITTEN QUESTION P-1018/02 by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Water quality assessment.
Date: 2002-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: West Midlands, infringement of EU law, infringement procedure (EU), wastewater, water treatment

C 277 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

In the context of payments it is important to make a distinction between strictly national transactions and
those which have a cross-border dimension. A payment using a national cheque for € 100 within France
entails virtually no charges. A cross-border payment in euros of the same amount would incur charges of
over € 25. The beneficiary is in serious danger of receiving less than € 75 in payment. There are
consequently sound economic reasons for refusing such cheques.

These cheques are refused because simply they are cross-border cheques. Under the legal tender principle a
trader is never obliged to accept a cheque payment, but he cannot refuse a payment in cash. It is therefore
legally possible for a trader to decide to accept only certain categories of cheque.

The question then arises as to whether such behaviour should be judged in accordance with the EC Treaty
rules on the free movement of capital (Article 56(1)) or payments between Member States (Article 56(2)).
These rules apply only to the Member States. The case in point relates to a commercial decision by a
private company. It does not therefore seem to be governed by the above rules of the EC Treaty.

This being said, the Commission nevertheless takes the view that this difference in price between national
payments and cross-border payments is unacceptable for the smooth operation of the internal market. In
July 2001, it therefore proposed a Regulation introducing the principle of non-discrimination in charges
between national payments and cross-border payments. This Regulation was adopted on 19 December
2001 (1). The Commission originally proposed that the principle of equality of charges should also apply to
cross-border payments by cheque. Parliament and the Council decided not to follow the Commission’s
suggestion on that point.

The two main arguments were:

6 Cheques are disappearing as a form of national payment in several Union Member States;

6 Cheques cannot be used as a mechanised means of cross-border payment. This is explained in the

eighth recital of the Regulation, which states:

At present, it is not advisable to apply the principle of uniform charges for paper cheques as by
nature they cannot be processed as efficiently as the other means of payment,
in particular
electronic payments. However, the principle of transparent charges should also apply to cheques.

The principle of the harmonisation of charges set out in Article 3 does not therefore apply to cheques
(cf. answer to Question 3681/01 Banotti).

(1) Regulation No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border

payments in euro, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2002/C 277 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1018/02

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Water quality assessment

to the assessment of water quality taken as part of

Further
supervision of
implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive, does the Commission know what specific
parts of the West Midlands are most affected by poor water quality and what measures should be taken to
rectify problems in these areas?

the Commission’s

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/131

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Within the context of the urban waste water treatment Directive (1), the United Kingdom has partly
identified the region of Midlands as a sensitive area, which includes rivers such as the rivers Leadon, Chelt,
Avon, Bow Brook, Arrow, Teme and Blyth.

In addition, the Midlands area lies within the catchment area of the Humber, the estuary of which,
according to the Commission, should also have been identified as sensitive due to eutrophication. The
River Trent, which runs through the Midlands, is one of the main rivers flowing into the Humber Estuary.

Concerning the designation of potential sensitive areas under the urban wastewater treatment directive, the
Commission initiated an infringement procedure against the United Kingdom in 1998, which is at present
at the state of Reasoned Opinion.

To tackle the problem of poor water quality, Member States are required to identify sensitive areas
according to the criteria of the Directive, among which, eutrophication is one criterion. In areas which are
considered as sensitive by virtue of concerns regarding their eutrophic status, the urban wastewater
treatment directive foresees more advanced treatment
in
agglomerations with more than 10 000 person equivalents (deadline 31 December 1998).

(phosphorus or/and nitrogen removal)

Under the requirements of the urban wastewater treatment directive, Member States are required to report
to the Commission on the implementation of the directive. The latest date for which the Commission has
complete information is 1998. As of that date, a large number of British agglomerations discharging into
sensitive areas, did not comply with the provisions of the Directive. As regards West Midlands the
agglomerations of Barston, Redditch, Pershore, Ludov, Ledbury, Gloucester, Stanley Downtown and Coaley
did not comply with the provisions of the Directive. It is possible that the situation may have changed
over the last few years and the Commission is aware that the British authorities were intending to
introduce adequate treatment facilities for some of these agglomerations.

In order to improve poor water quality in the concerned regions, the implementation 6 as far as point
sources are the relevant factor 6 of wastewater treatment facilities should be improved. The problem of
eutrophication is a serious one, and areas being eutrophic or in danger to become eutrophic should be
identified as sensitive. As a consequence more stringent measures should be put in place. For the West
Midlands this would mean 6 among other requirements 6 that many major cities, which currently only
provide secondary treatment facilities, would have to be up-graded to tertiary treatment.

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991),

as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 (OJ L 67, 7.3.1998).

(2002/C 277 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1019/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Regional policy with particular reference to Slovakia and other applicant countries

A number of Member States are constitutional monarchies, and a number of Member States are republics.
Both forms of government are perfectly consistent with the European treaties.

Similarly, some Member States, such as Germany and Spain, have chosen to formalise in their
constitutions highly regionalised structures of government, whilst others, such as France and the United
Kingdom, have preferred to maintain more traditional, centralised structures. These are matters of national
choice, with Portugal, for example, choosing several years ago to reject a more regional structure in a
referendum.